Journal Reviewed:

Platzek, B. P., & Pretorius, L. (2015). Corporate Entrepreneurship Education: Individual and
Organizational Entrepreneurial Learning.
The journal, “Corporate Entrepreneurship Education: Individual and Organizational
Entrepreneurial Learning” by Brend P. Platzek and Leon Pretorius seek to research and toward
a multi-level perspective of entrepreneurial learning in global business environments.
Corporate entrepreneurship education follows a multi-level perspective and combine
individual, team and organization learning. The theoretical analysis and theory-based
exploration research method focus on the application of theoretical constructs for corporate
and individual entrepreneurial mindsets. Entrepreneurship theory helps to see entrepreneurial
practice in a new light and entrepreneurial practice supports the integration of new information
into the knowledge base. This research considers how a multi-level approach on entrepreneurial
learning in theory and practice, that help us understand the nature of holistic corporate
entrepreneurship in dynamic environments and to build knowledge and competences for
ongoing entrepreneurial action.

In the turbulent business environment, the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur (the

PACE-Concept) (Platzek et al. 2013) and the vital entrepreneurial learning organization (the
VELO-Concept) (Platzek et al. 2014) is a framework which theoretically define the content of
holistic corporate entrepreneurship education. The PACE-Concept plans the entrepreneurial
process, create an appropriate work climate, monitor and control the developing opportunity
and manage failure through discovery-driven planning and involvement (McGrath and
MacMillan 2000). At the same time, they also search for new activities to create new value
(Platzek et al. 2013). The PACE-Concept is divided into three levels which are top-level and
middle-level corporate entrepreneurs and first-level Managers and Non-Managerial Personnel.
Besides, the PACE-Concept needs to combine the perspective of the individual corporate
entrepreneur with his/her managerial and entrepreneurial mindset (Birkinshaw and Gibson
2004, Platzek et al. 2013). However, for a better understanding of company-level
entrepreneurship and to develop an image of the relevant content, the VELO-Concept is
introduced. The VELO-Concept is based on three central tasks for the entrepreneurial
organization such as entrepreneurial information gathering, shaping of the future and shaping
of the organisation. Furthermore, from a company-level perspective, management workshop
for entrepreneurial shaping of the future by agents of change, analysis of individual
entrepreneurial shaping of the future by agents and teams, analysis of entrepreneurial culture
by culture agents, analysis if the macro environment by country agents and analysis of the
micro environment by industry agents are the five learning elements that can strengthen the
development of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization.

In evaluation and implementation of opportunities, reasoning and analytical thinking is

an essential method to identify opportunities. According to Honig (2004), implementation of
corporate entrepreneurship education should be designed as closely as possible to the business
environment. The aim of designing an effective learning opportunity is to develop
entrepreneurial understanding and risk taking in entrepreneurial action. Hence, the modules of
corporate entrepreneurship education should be designed in contingency-based training.
Besides, seminars and workshops by industry experts will also help to build up necessary
knowledge base. State by Lan et al. (2008) corporate entrepreneurship education can focus on
learning for corporate entrepreneurship through the development of an entrepreneurial mindset
and by strengthening entrepreneurial behaviour or learning about corporate entrepreneurship
through understanding entrepreneurial situations and context. Furthermore, at individual and
collective level, competence assessment can be a strategic starting point for corporate
entrepreneurship education. Examples of competencies are social skills, functional business
skills, general management skills and entrepreneurial skills. Lastly, the theoretical and
conceptual exploration led to the development of a generic entrepreneurial learning program
with twelve class-room based modules and eight practice-based modules.

Based on the journal, the context for holistic corporate entrepreneurship education
involve two concepts which are the PACE-Concept and the VELO-Concept. However, most
educational education theory does not explicitly refer to corporate entrepreneurship as there is
not specific investigation to support the existing theory for relevant content and pointers.
Therefore, more researches are needed to proof the theory is existed and some social studies
may carry out to obtain more opinions from public. The PACE-Concept refers to the
personality of the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur. In this concept, the political skills were
emphasized as it helps in overcoming resistance and obtaining resources for the entrepreneurial
initiative (Block and MacMillan, 1993). With a managerial and entrepreneurial perspective,
ambidextrous corporate entrepreneurs perform well in established environments while at the
same time search for new activities to create new value (Platzek et al, 2013). Besides, general
manager roles derived in theoretical exploration to evaluate the current knowledge base and to
define the necessary learning content (Platzek et al, 2013). The VELO-Concept means vital
entrepreneurial learning organization. Three central tasks for the entrepreneurial organization
are entrepreneurial information gathering, shaping of the future, and shaping of the
organization. Generally, the PACE-Concept for the content of corporate entrepreneurship
education is at the individual level while the VELO-Concept is at the company level.

For education theory, there are many learning efforts and reflecting in practice. Through
the learning for entrepreneurship, it aims to develop the entrepreneurial understanding and risk
taking in entrepreneurial action. The entrepreneurial organization should learn from product,
market and technology. Entrepreneur should know the balance of theory and practice through
the corporate entrepreneurial education. Corporate entrepreneurship education can focus
through the development of the mindset and entrepreneurial behaviour. But according to De
Tienne and Chandler (2004), corporate entrepreneurship education would be inappropriate to
assume that all relevant information required to identify opportunities can be present in a
classroom. The information should be gained from the latest news through the media.
Knowledges of corporate entrepreneurship also can get from the well- known corporate
entrepreneur for an interview. The individual and organizational can be improved by holistic
corporate entrepreneurship education. It is an effective method in unpredictable business but
based on Wunderer (2006), the practice should undergo learning, testing and experimenting.

There are some of the modular concept for holistic corporate entrepreneurship
education. The modular concept contain classroom- based learning which understanding
context and roles from a multi- level perspective. The modular concept lead to reflect in
practice which is entrepreneurial work- based learning. It also leading in learning mechanism
which are theory- based and practice- based pedagogies

In classroom based learning, it is about to understand the corporate entrepreneurship.

For reflecting on practice, in example of module 17 (Entrepreneurial Activity Analysis),
corporate entrepreneur takes a venture story and take conclusion from the past experience to
use in future for the entrepreneurial activities. While for module 18 (Business Planning),
corporate entrepreneur takes a forward perspective to reflect on future entrepreneurial action
and write the business plan. In combining action and reflection in practice, theory- based and
practice- based should be used in entrepreneurial learning.

In conclusion, the journal is introducing a concept for a holistic corporate

entrepreneurship education by bringing out the PACE-Concept and the VELO-Concept. The
concept is acceptable as today’s dynamic business environment makes a multi-level approach
with individual, team, and organizational learning valuable. Furthermore, based on the two
concepts, the journal provided a modular concept for holistic corporate entrepreneurship
education which had associated with both theory-based and practice-based pedagogies. From
this concept, the corporate entrepreneurship knowledge can be transferred in combining action
and reflection in practice, reflection on practice and class-room based learning. Overall the
article had explained the theory and concept for corporate entrepreneurship education. Reader
could understand well as the elaboration for each theory are reasonable and logical. Moreover,
the author provided a modular concept which could be established directly in the corporate
entrepreneurship education. It is important to have corporate entrepreneurship education
because entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education have more relevance today than ever
before as stated by Neck and Greene (2011). Entrepreneurial firms and entrepreneurial agents
are a driving force for innovation, renewal, and development in today’s globally competitive
technology business environment (Kuratko, 2005, Baumol et al, 2007).

References

1. Baumol, W.J., Litan, R.E. and Schramm, C.J. (2007). Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalis
m and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity. Yale University Press: New Haven.
2. Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004). Building Ambidexterity into an Organization.
MIT Sloan Management Review: Summer.
3. Block, Z. and MacMillan, I.C. (1993). Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses
within the Firm. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
4. De Tienne, D.R. and Chandler, G.N. (2004). Opportunity Identification and Its Role i
n the Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test. Acade
my of Management Learning and Education 3, no. 3: 242‐257.
5. Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency‐
Based Business Planning. Academy of Management Learning and Education 3, no. 3:
258‐273.
6. Kuratko, D.F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Developments,
Trends, and Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. September: 577‐597.
7. Lans, T., Hulsink, W., Baert, H. and Mulder, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship education a
nd training in a small business context: Insights from the competence‐
based approach. Journal of Enterprising Culture 16, no. 4: 363‐383.
8. McGrath, R.G. and MacMillan, I. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for
Continously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Harvard Business School
Press: Boston.
9. Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.
Organization Science 5, no. 1: 14‐37
10. Platzek, B.P., Hohl, E.K. and Pretorius, L. (2013). General Manager Roles in the Vital
EntrepreneurialLearning Organization. In: Innovating in global markets: Challenges f
or sustainable growth. XXIV ISPIM Proceedings: Helsinki.
11. Platzek, B.P., Pretorius, L. and Winzker, D.H. (2014). The Vital Entrepreneurial
Learning Organization:
A Corporate Mindset for Entrepreneurial Change Management International Journal o
f Innovation and Technology Management, 11, no. 5: 1‐23.
12. Raelin, J.A. (2007). Toward an Epistemology of Practice. Academy of Management
Learning & Education 6, no. 4: 495‐519.
13. Wunderer, R. (2006). Führung und Zusammenarbeit: Eine unternehmerische Führung
slehre. 6. Auflage. Luchterhand. München.